Press Room

"Madison Square Garden will soon be permitted under its shortest timeline to date – an indicator of how seriously the city should take the issues caused by the facility, to say nothing of concerns about the practices of its owners. While I agreed with the local Community Board that a three year permit would be preferred, I am grateful the City Council committees approved five years rather than the proposed ten.

"We cannot wait five years before engaging again on this issue and developing a plan; we need to seize the moment and work now to develop a sustainable strategy for the region, and for the train station beneath it. Transit needs to be at the center of all plans for the area, and Penn Station needs to become the modern, nation-leading transit hub it has the opportunity to be. All of this work needs to be done with, rather than to, the surrounding community.

"If in the five years to come, we cannot ensure that critical transportation infrastructure updates can be made to Penn Station, Madison Square Garden itself will have to be transported to a new location, and the station rebuilt from the ground up."

“I am glad to see the governor commit this location and funding to provide shelter for the ever-increasing number of new and aspiring New Yorkers arriving in our city. The site is not ideal, but we continue to be left to choose the best of bad options, and I will work to ensure that shelters meet the necessary standards, including security precautions, resource availability, and transportation access to and from the site for migrants and community organizations alike. I hope that this and other actions signal a sustained and increased effort by the state to step up with financial and infrastructural support to meet this humanitarian crisis. 

“I appreciate the federal government approving this site location – their support cannot end with approval, as there is a much greater responsibility. We urgently need more federal funding, resources, and infrastructure to help ensure that people fleeing danger and seeking asylum and support in our country are met by the federal government with aid, not apathy.”

With the federal hurdles cleared and the implementation of congestion pricing approaching, Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams urged that the program be executed with common sense, equitable considerations, adjustments, and exemptions in order to be most effective and avoid unintended consequences. The Public Advocate has been a longtime and outspoken supporter of congestion pricing, particularly highlighting its benefits to the climate and revenue raising implications. At a hearing today of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, he highlighted the need for thoughtful design of the program.

“I hope the Traffic Mobility Review Board, the MTA, and the DOT keep all the aforementioned concerns in mind and collectively devise and implement a congestion pricing program that is equitable across the board, mitigates financial burden on New York City’s working class and communities of more color, and improves environmental outcomes,” said Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams. “Every New Yorker deserves a chance to live, work, and play in the city we call home, and that includes improving transportation access and outcomes for all.”

Under New York City’s congestion pricing plan, the first such model in the nation, fees will be charged to enter Manhattan south of 60th street, one of the world’s busiest commercial districts. The MTA is tasked with determining this fee, and expects to see $1 billion in revenue annually. The program will also reduce traffic and negative climate impact. In his statement to the committee, the Public Advocate highlighted several considerations to prevent negative impacts of the program on low-income and working class New Yorkers

“Congestion pricing… aims to reduce traffic and pollution, and provide much-needed transit improvements,” explained the Public Advocate. “I am in support of these goals, and want to emphasize that the pursuit of these outcomes should not be at the expense of others. I urge the Traffic Mobility Review Board to be conscientious of ongoing concerns raised by workers who rely on their vehicles, low-income drivers, residents and businesses within the corridor, and neighbors of the surrounding areas.”

Among the considerations raised by the Public Advocate were financial burdens for rideshare drivers and passengers, foot traffic impacts for small businesses in the tolling zone, and the potential for increased congestion and traffic pollution along alternative routes, predominantly in communities of more color.

The Public Advocate’s full comments at the hearing are below.

STATEMENT OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE JUMAANE D. WILLIAMS TO THE NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE ON CONGESTION PRICING  AUGUST 17, 2023 

Good morning, 

My name is Jumaane D. Williams and I am the Public Advocate for the City of New York. I would like to thank Chair Brooks-Powers and members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for holding this hearing.

In June of 2023, the final federal hurdle in the implementation of congestion pricing in New York City was cleared, marking the first time in the United States that a congestion pricing program is set to become reality. For years, NYC has been ranked as one of the most congested and traffic-clogged American cities. Per the program, drivers would be charged a fee to enter Manhattan south of 60th street, one of the world’s busiest commercial districts. The fee has yet to be set and will be determined by the MTA, which is overseeing the tolling program, which is also anticipated to generate $1 billion annually for MTA capital projects. Congestion pricing, which is slated to begin next year, aims to reduce traffic and pollution, and provide much-needed transit improvements. I am in support of these goals, have proudly been so since relatively few of us were during my first term in office, and want to emphasize that the pursuit of these outcomes should not be at the expense of others. I urge the Traffic Mobility Review Board to be conscientious of ongoing concerns raised by workers who rely on their vehicles, low-income drivers, residents and businesses within the Central Business District Tolling Zone, and neighbors of the surrounding communities.

I do know there may be some discussion about exemptions– they should be few and far between, and slightly more discounts. Without those, there will be a disproportionate financial burden on taxi, for-hire vehicles, Uber, and Lyft drivers. I do think there should be a discount for Uber and Lyft drivers; I would be remiss if I didn’t say that I think the burgeoning industry of Uber and Lyft did add some of the congestion we’re speaking of. Without some of these discounts, we may see fare increases and a decrease in demand for taxis and for-hire rides. For rideshare drivers, the Review Board should find a way to ensure that rideshare companies are responsible for the fees, not the individual drivers, and the fee should not be the full proposed $23 nor should drivers be tolled for multiple trips. Furthermore, low-income drivers, who may live in transit deserts and rely on their vehicles as a result, of course this is relatively few, should also benefit from discounts and a limited number of tolls. It is my understanding that the MTA has already conducted studies and assessments on these proposals, and it is my hope that they follow through to mitigate negative impacts to low-income and working class New Yorkers.

Additionally, another concern relates to unintended consequences for residents and businesses within the tolling zone, as well as the surrounding communities. Small businesses in the tolling zone have shared worries that congestion pricing may lead to lower foot traffic, and freights and deliveries may potentially be impacted. I am a proponent of utilizing public transit where applicable, but as we know transit access is not equitable across the city, thus cars may be one of the only means of transportation for some. There are also environmental concerns in regards to diverted traffic from congestion pricing; in particular, I think of low-income communities of more color that may see greater traffic pollution in response to drivers finding alternative routes throughout the city. They may end up parking in these neighborhoods and take up additional parking spaces which may lead to greater traffic build-up. Places like Northern Manhattan and the South Bronx, which have the highest death and disease rates of asthma in the country, do not need to bear the brunt of more pollution. While congestion pricing is ultimately moving forward, and should, expeditiously, with the goal of improving environmental outcomes, we must ensure that it does not end up becoming merely a redirection of existing traffic pollution – perhaps there’s a way we can prevent people from parking day to day outside of those communities. 

I hope the Traffic Mobility Review Board, the MTA, and the DOT keep all the aforementioned concerns in mind and collectively devise and implement a congestion pricing program that is equitable across the board, mitigates financial burden on NYC’s working class and communities of more color, and improves environmental outcomes. Every New Yorker deserves a chance to live, work, and play in the city we call home, and that includes improving transportation access and outcomes for all. I also just want to say that I'm a driver, cyclist, and pedestrian. My family comes from a family of drivers – we do know that cars are the most protected, most dangerous, and carry the least people on the road, and we have the most infrastructure for them. That is something we definitely have to change. Most working-class, low-income New Yorkers do not drive daily, they take mass transit. If you’re driving into the city daily, you’re doing so mostly because of the convenience, and we have to change things. I know that this is difficult for some folks. With the money gained, we can make better mass transit, for most people who travel. The preference would be people not driving during those hours in midtown, but if they do, I think congestion pricing makes the most sense and is what we need to do. 

Thank you.

New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams released the following statement in response to the city’s plans to construct a new Humanitarian Emergency Response and Relief Center on Randall’s Island.

“As the scope and urgency of this humanitarian crisis grows, the insufficient state response and near-total lack of real federal aid have forced the city – which has of course made its own missteps – to now choose from the best of bad options. I urge Albany and Washington to see the reality of the challenges facing people seeking asylum in our city and finally step up, instead of looking away.

“It is vital that this new site meets the standards of New York’s right to shelter, and that it is constructed with safeguards against issues such as flooding and transit access which we raised last time one was built. It is also crucial that local residents and leaders are not blindsided by the announcement of new shelters – my office has legislation to require detailed, public plans for future shelter siting, and passing this bill would help to prepare communities for the realities and responsibilities of helping bring our newest New Yorkers into our neighborhoods, not onto the streets.”

The Public Advocate’s legislation, Intro 780, would create a commission to develop a citywide shelter siting plan for both emergency and longer-term shelters. Under the bill, currently in committee, the commission would develop a five year plan, updated annually, that determines the best locations for shelters by analyzing the relationship between shelter locations, access to communities of origin, public transit, and essential services. It would also help to determine the need for shelters in specific locations, finances required to provide them and any essential, alternative or emergency services required for such shelters, including through public input.

NEW YORK: The New York City Council today passed New York City Public Advocate Jumaane D. Williams’ legislation designed to incentivize the building of green projects throughout New York City. The Green Building Project Bill– co-sponsored by Council Member Sandy Nurse– will continue the work of increasing efficiency, decreasing emissions, and building a greener New York City.

“The climate crisis is here and it’s affecting communities across New York City in profound ways– especially in low-income communities and communities of more color,” said Public Advocate Williams. “Every New Yorker deserves access to a safe and healthy home. We must invest in clean energy and actions towards environmental justice. Not only will this allow us to reach our environmental protection goals but it will also provide much needed relief to homeowners while allowing us to reach economic growth with new jobs.”

In 2019, the city enacted Local Law 97, which requires buildings over 25,000 square feet to meet new energy efficiency standards and greenhouse gas emissions limits by 2024. The law also created an advisory board and climate working group that supports the City on meeting these aggressive sustainability goals, with the goal of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from buildings to 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

Intro 689-A from the Public Advocate broadens the parameters for certain green incentives established in that 2019 landmark law to include smaller buildings. By expanding the definition of a green building project to include those undertaken in one to three family homes and eliminating fees for those projects, the bill provides incentives for owners to improve green energy efficiency. The Public Advocate noted that in implementing this measure, just as with Local Law 97, it would be critical to verify that sustainability standards are truly being met to merit these incentives. Full text of the legislation can be found here.

"At a time when New Yorkers are experiencing the impacts of the climate crisis, we need to remove as many barriers as possible for the construction of sustainable green buildings that reduce energy and emissions," said Council Member Sandy Nurse, co-sponsor of the legislation. "As a long time champion for climate and environmental justice, I'm proud to be a co-sponsor on this bill with Public Advocate Jumaane Williams that incentivizes and streamlines the process for building a livable city."

“After over a decade of pushing for a holistic approach to addressing gun violence at its roots, and being met with alternating hesitancy and hostility, it’s gratifying to hear today’s announcement finally supporting those strategies. I thank the mayor for expressing a willingness to initiate a plan that begins to put the measures in place that can have a real and lasting impact, saving lives in our communities by building them up – not simply through overreliance on law enforcement.

“Intention is important, but implementation is key. In the coming weeks and months, my office will be monitoring closely and collaborating wherever possible to ensure that the investment and infrastructure are put in the places they will be most effective.

“I want to caution that this kind of approach and impact are not instantaneous. The benefits here will be lasting, but they will not be immediate – and we need to have the political courage to stay the course in an environment of short headlines and long political campaigns. We will absolutely need standards for success and accountability, but it is important for those metrics to align with the approach. If we do this right, we have an opportunity to help New Yorkers be and feel safe, lasting beyond any news cycle or any administration.”